Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
New IMDb templates Recently, MstrControl created Template:IMDb-company and Template:IMDb-name, both of which I see as mostly useless. The first one, which is a template to link production companies to IMDb, is only used 3 times, one of which is Memory Alpha:Message templates, explaining it. We don't need a template for only two real pages. I'm sure that we can manually use external links for those instead of a template. The second one is a bit trickier. It "is used to create an inline link to an IMDb page for a movie or a TV show." There are more links for this one, but most of these links should not be external IMDb links, but Wikipedia links. If there isn't a Wikipedia page available, then either it should not have a link, or it should be a manual external link (again, because a template for such a small number would be asinine). I don't see the point in either of these two templates. Delete both. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 23:15, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC) *Is it MA's policy to only include links to Wiki pages? If not, why should we not link to an IMDb page if there's not a Wikipedia page. I agree that the Wiki links are preferrable, but I think you'll find that there are a lot of movies and TV shows that are on IMDb but not on Wikipedia (especially older ones). Why not, then, have a template for those links? It saves a bit of typing, and also, ultimately, disk storage. I vote to keep Template:IMDb-name. I agree, though, that Template:IMDb-company is unnecessary, and can be deleted. Renegade54 00:47, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) *The IMDb-link template serves our purposes just fine. Delete both. --From Andoria with Love 00:56, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' company --Alan del Beccio 07:19, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) *My question still wasn't answered, though... do we NOT want inline links to IMDb when there's no equivalent Wiki page? If not, why not? Renegade54 01:11, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) :*I don't think there's any policy that states there should not be any inline links to non-wiki pages, which means the IMDb-name template might come in handy. The main problem is all the arrows all over the place indicating a link to be external. Those are a bit annoying, at least to me. --From Andoria with Love 02:02, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) *If IMDb-company is used too rarely, we can delete it. Originally I thought about nominating IMDb-name for immediate deletion because it duplicated IMDb-link, but then I noticed that IMDb-link has this "at the Internet Movie Database"-tail, so it can't be used within the text. That's why I changed it to a supplement for the in-text WP links. Ok, the arrows are a bit odd, but that's only relevant if there is a greater number of them, what is rarely the case. So keep it. --Memory 18:27, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) *I think inline links to external sources should be used only sparingly, if possible avoided. How often do we really want to link to an article at the IMDb if it is about an person/film etc. that we do not want to have an own article about? Delete. -- Cid Highwind 20:06, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC) **Let's explain it this way: if you look at James Cromwell you can see it works well because you don't have to scroll down and click through IMDb to "L.A. Confidential" if you want to know something about this movie. And I doubt that L.A. Confidential is referenced in Trek, so we don't need an article. Btw: if we delete this, the inline links via blabla must be removed for the same reasons... --Memory 20:55, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) The Wikipedia links are different, in that they link to another Wiki. However, even those should be used at a minimum. The excessive IMDb links in an article are just annoying, at least in my opinion. By the way, the IMDb links on Cromwell (and some other pages, but not all) have been replaced with the (likely) preferred Wikipedia links, where applicable. :) --From Andoria with Love 05:22, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) :And this is supposed to be a substitution for all the cases that no WP article exists ;-) --Memory 19:41, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) Superfluous Babel categories I was going to create the remaining Babel templates and categories, but then I thought to myself... How many of these categories will actually have people in them? Like some other things, I don't think Memory Alpha needs categories for each level of a language, simply because we don't have that many people and with a language like, say, Italian, I don't think there's a need for five categories. I'm posting this here rather than Ten Forward because I don't want to turn this into another "Was that a formal vote?" situation like the Duty Roster. So, I'm nominating all categories on Memory Alpha:Babel, outside the "User it", "User sv", etc, for deletion. The only exception should be English, which should be standard but not necessarily native. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:52, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC) :I completely agree (delete) - let's have one category per language, listing all editors who actually speak that language at any level, but not 5 categories each. The english categories are not suggested for deletion here, but even they might be trimmed down IMO. -- Cid Highwind 22:56, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::I have no problem trimming the Babel model -- the form i created it in was designed to reproduce the more extensive MA/de and Wikipedia versions, but i agree that for MA's size and activity, it might not be necessary to sort them in the current form. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk :::Wow. Um... yeah, delete. --From Andoria with Love 01:02, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Could you post which links you specifically want deleted? --Alan del Beccio 20:05, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) Courtney Taylor ;Courtney Taylor : Actress whose only credit was a voice-over in a non-canon Star Trek video game. Having articles for those who worked in canon productions is one thing, but I don't think we need to start creating those who worked in non-canon items. At the very least, this should be merged with Star Trek: Starfleet Command III. --From Andoria with Love 01:29, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Delete: I don't even think this info should even be included on the Starfleet Command III page. Memory Alpha is about everything related to canon Star Trek, not everything related to things related to canon Star Trek.--Tim Thomason 06:27, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) * unsure -- should contributors to non-canon pursuits (writers and editors and illustrators and artists of comics, novels, toys and games) be given credit here? for voiceovers and some types of comic artists i'd at least say some sort of central table could be created (to see which contributors have been in every release, which have recurred or worked for different companies). i think this master list might be a better idea, if other archivists think giving courtney and her peers their own articles. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * Keep for now. We certainly need to open a dialogue on whether or not real-life people attached to non-canon yet sanctioned Trek projects deserve their own pages. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:01, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) :* Well, we do have pages for authors and illustrators of Trek books, so I don't know. I think we should just delete this, otherwise we may be giving the okay to create pages for others involved in non-canon merchandise (i.e. individual video game engineers and developers). I think that would be going a bit overboard. Just giving them credit on the game's article should be enough. --From Andoria with Love 04:39, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. Too many degrees of seperation. If she had worked on an episode of movie, keep it, but this seems so obscure. Jaz 08:52, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) String Theory ;String Theory (physics) Evidently stemmed from a red link in the space article...there is no Trek content to it, no citation, nor does it appear to have any other pages linked to it that might suggest there could be a citation for it somewhere. --Alan del Beccio 05:34, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', and remove the blasted reference from the space artcle. :P --From Andoria with Love 05:41, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Delete the heretical text.--Tim Thomason 06:27, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Delete - Captain Mike K. Barteltalk *'Delete', then replace as Mike suggests (eh, suggested... maybe just delete, then ;)). Even with the recent additions, this article has no apparent Trek relevancy, and on top of that would need a serious rewrite (POV, formatting, factual accuracy) if kept. -- Cid Highwind 15:28, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) **The original contributor blanked the article, i presupposed this was a deletion request, howeever he has not responded to my talk. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * Delete. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:01, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) Dax's gossip column ;Dax's gossip column : Evidently somebody's poor attempt at humor, it's also told in the wrong perspective. This probably qualifies for an immediate deletion, but having had no sleep for the past, oh, 27 hours, what do I know? :-P --From Andoria with Love 16:07, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) * I dunno, I suppose it could be merged into the pages of the individuals referenced on the page. I'll do it if I find time. --Alan del Beccio 18:24, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) * delete I don't understand the problem with linking to those four articles -- perhaps the archivist thought they werent allowed to add Manwaring and Strek articles? They seem valid to me, but archivists really have to (<--click the link) and add the citations themselves. Since Strek and Manwaring et al. were mentioned in a valid resource, a canon episode, there's no problem with creating new articles for them and listing them as Starfleet personnel, Deep Space 9 personnel, Starfleet lieutenants, etc etc. The comment in the article seems to indicate the contributor thought that Strek wasn't important enough to have his own article, but he was (?) mentioned on the show, so theres no problem (is there?)-- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * Delete and salvage any useful content. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:01, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) String Theory (Physics) ;String Theory (Physics): Same as before--Alan del Beccio 18:14, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) *I suggested this be moved to a background secton -- perhaps we can merge with an article that deals heavily with string theory (such as a "references" section of Star Trek: Voyager - String Theory or a "background" section of graviton or subatomic particle. I suggested this already to the original contributor, but he seems to have his hands full trying to understand the wiki structure right now and chose to recreate the article even though i suggested not to. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk **i've moved this to subatomic physics, which i feel might be a valid area of expansion. portions not mentioned on Star Trek must be kept in a background section, according to our -- please click on the link to read the , and also the -- to understand why topics not mentioned on Star Trek should not have articles named after them, and should always have non-Star trek related data in "background" subsections. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk *I have merged the article with Star Trek: Voyager - String Theory, the actual article shall be deleted **Looks like we both worked on this -- i moved the article anyway. Perhaps the novel version could be shortened, and both versions kept (altough the edition in subatomic physics still needs formatting -- we should probably only list points about string theory there that would lead to a link to an article that already exists. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 26 26 - Incorrect information (Only Deep Space 9 has 26 hour days as we know), and personal note background information. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 23:44, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Delete. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:01, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Delete. I would think this would actually qualify as an inaccurate delete, since it doesn't contain any meaningful (or accurate) content. --From Andoria with Love 05:15, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) Macchiato ;Macchiato: This appeared in a draft of the script for "The Chase" which was subsequently rewritten, removing the reference and any chance it was in a deleted scene. I suppose that since we've kept information on things like the second USS Reliant, which was also from a draft version of the script and was certainly never on film, this could conceivably stay as well, but it would need a rewrite to acknowledge this fact. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:01, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) :Keep. I've added a note to explain its removal prior to filming, so I don't think there's any need to delete it. --From Andoria with Love 05:18, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) The Sunspots *The Sunspots. Should be deleted. It doesn't matter if its a band made up of former cast members, it is not trek related. Jaz 08:49, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) **'Delete': It's been deleted before, and consensus was to "move" it to the actor's articles. I think we should simply delete it now, as the information should already be on the actors' articles.--Tim Thomason 09:20, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) **Since it's been deleted before, it qualified as an immediate delete. Deleted. --From Andoria with Love 11:00, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) The Dauphin (TNG episode) ;The Dauphin (TNG episode) : Redirect; was created to catch link from Wikipedia article. I instead changed the Wikipedia page to link to the correct article title here - I guess that's the preferred way of doing things... -- Cid Highwind 21:41, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) * delete - There may also be other, similar redirects within M/A as well, might have to spot those at some point as well. --Alan del Beccio 22:53, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) Memory Beta ;Memory Beta : The assumption seems logical, but it is still an assumption. With no "original" information (not counting the fact that there are facilities with similar names) and probably no one ever linking to or searching for it, I simply don't see the sense of this. -- Cid Highwind 23:00, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) :I moved the reference to part of a non-canon article, Memory Beta was mentioned in "Memory Prime". deletion is likely for the redirect. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk